Bangalore water supply v. r rajappa

These slides provide case brief of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R Rajappa case.
The case covers:
Citation
Facts
Procedural History
Issues
Principle
Judgement
Recent Developments

1. Topic What is Industry? Case Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R Rajappa Presenter Jowairia Sajid Enrollment 01-177161-018

2.   Case Name Bangalore Water-Supply v. R. Rajappa & Others   2.   Citation 1978 AIR 548, 1978 SCR (3) 207   3.  Petitioner Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board   4.  Respondent R. Rajappa & others   5.  Date of Judgment 21/02/1978   6.   Quorum Beg, M. Hameedullah ( Cj ), Chandrachud , Y.V., Bhagwati , P.N., Krishnaiyer , V.R. & Tulzapurkar , V.D., Desai, D.A. & Singh, Jaswant  

3. Facts of the case Bangalore Water Supply Board (BWSB) took disciplinary action against its workers for misconduct. Employees filed Claims Application No. 5172 under section 33C(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, alleging that such action violated the principle of natural justice. The appellant Board raised a preliminary objection before the Labor Court that the ‘Board’ being a statutory body performing what is in essence a regal function by providing the basic amenities to the citizens, is not an industry within the meaning of the expression under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. Procedural History Board raised contention before labour court that it is a service institution which is involved in rendering services to the public but is not carrying such business with profit motive so it cannot be deemed as an industry. This objection was over-ruled. Appellant Board filed two Writ ‘Petitions before the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore. The Division Bench of that High Court dismissed the petitions and held that the appellant Board is “industry” within the meaning ‘of the expression under section 2(i) of the Industrial, Disputes Act, 1947 The appeal by Special Leave was filed before the Supreme Court and the court entertained the appeal on the ground that there should be, comprehensive, clear and conclusive declaration as to what is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. Issues of the case

6. Principle Established In this case, the court propounded that a “ triple test” criteria will be laid down in order to determine whether a particular establishment falls under the domain of industry or not. The test sets out three distinct aspects that are mandatory for any establishment in order to be considered as industry. All these three aspects should be present simultaneously and should run concurrently.

7. Triple Test That there should be a systematic activity and it is a kind of that activity means any structured or organized activity that involves an element of planning, method, continuity or persistence. Such activity should be organized by co-operation between employer and employee. The amount of involvement or the nature of work or designation is not the indicator, the only pertinent requirement is the “employee-employer relationship ”. The activity should be carried for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious) but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss.

8. Dominant Nature Test Where there are complex set of activities, some of which qualify for exemption while others not and involves employees on the total undertaking, some of whom are not 'workmen' or some departments are not productive of goods and services if isolated, then regardless of the predominant nature of the services the whole undertaking will be 'industry' although those who are not 'workmen' by definition may not benefit by the status .

9. Concluding Remarks While this case settled a criteria and it closed all the floodgates of uncertainties but this opened the Pandora box of litigations by widening the definition of term ‘industry’. This severely caused damage in industrial domain as the prevailing legal regime was completely employee- centric. Due to these complexities, recently the judgment was challenged in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jaibir Singh and matter was placed for reconsideration of ‘Bangalore Case’. The decision of the case is still pending.